Nazir 5:3 - 5:4

מי שנדר בנזיר – in a language that resembled it for him that he was not a Nazirite.

ונשאל לחכם – and who said to him that there is something in that this language formulation of the language of Naziriteship, and he was not careful from drinking wine,

מונה משעה שנדר – and we don’t fine him that he transgressed and drank wine, even though, from doubt, it is prohibited, he should have separated himself until he would seek and ask a Sage.

נשאל לחכם והתירו – who said to him that there is nothing in this language of the language of Naziriteship.

תצא ותרעה בעדר – for setting aside [an animal] by error is a vain talk but it should become non-holy and in this, the School of Shammai agrees for since he is not a Nazirite when he states that it [i.e., the animal] should go for the sacrifices of the Nazirite, and he didn’t say anything, like a person who is not liable for a sin-offering and states: “behold, this is for my sin-offering.”

אי אתם מודים בזה שהוא הקדש טעות – and what is the difference from the beginning of the chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1), when you (i.e., the School of Shammai) stated that [an act of] consecration done in error is binding [i.e., consecrated]?

אמרו להם בית שמאי – they were not anxious to respond t them the essence of their reasoning, but they spoke to them in accordance with their own words “from the ninth and the eleventh that they consecrated in error and we extend the scope/include from (Leviticus 27:32): “All tithes of he herd or flock – [of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, every tenth one – shall be holy to the LORD].”

אמרו להם ב"ה לא השבט קדשו – to be read [as a question – in astonishment], meaning to say, the decree of the Biblical verse is that the ninth and the eleventh which are near the tenth, the staff sanctifies them, if he called them “the tenth,” and we do not derive from this merely that an act of consecration made in error is consecrated, for were it not for this reason because of an act of consecration made in error, if so, then even the eighty and the twelfth also [would be included], but rather because the Biblical verse that sanctified the tenth, etc., and it is the decree of the Biblical verse (that the tenth one, approximately, would be sanctified) and we don’t derive anything from this.

מי שנדר בנזיר – and at the time that he took the vow [of becoming a Nazirite], he had the animals [for the sacrifice] and with the knowledge/intention that it was for this purpose he made the vow that he would offer up his sacrifices from those animals, and he went and found that they had been stolen and on account of this, regretted that he took the vow of becoming a Nazirite.

אם עד שלא נגנבו בהמותיו נדר, הרי זה נזיר – and a Sage should not absolve him through this opening for retracting a vow (i.e., suggesting reasons which, if known at the time, would have prevented the person from making the vow), for it was a novel incident changing the aspects of a vow and eventually nullifies it, and we don’t open with a novel incident.

ואם לאחר שנגנבו נדר – and he stated: “had I known that they would be stolen, I would not have made this vow, this is an opening that the Sage could annul.

וזו טעות טעה נחום הנדי כשעלו נזירים מן הגולה ומצאו בהה"ק חרב – and they made the vow prior to the Temple’s destruction and he (i.e., the Sage) released them and the Sages said to him that it was a novel incident changing the aspects of a vow, and eventually nullifying it, and we don’t open with a novel incident, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.